The silence after the lynch of Israel's Arabs

[cali]

A young man from Tel Aviv who was injured in a road accident last week wrote on Facebook: “In the emergency room at Ichilov, on the bed next to mine, lay the waiter who was beaten by a mob because he is an Arab. He didn’t stop crying, and I wanted them to run me over again.”

The waiter had fallen victim to an attack by a gang of revelers at a beach restaurant. His sin was that he cleared the mayonnaise from their table before they had finished eating. This happened just a few days after an Israeli Arab, this time a cleaning worker, suffered very serious head injuries in a nighttime lynch attempt. Here too the attackers were Jewish partiers, here too it happened on the shores of the first Hebrew city. In that same week a Palestinian woman from East Jerusalem was attacked by a gang of male and female Jews. The windows of a car driven by a Jewish teacher who was taking an Arab friend with her to offer condolences to a colleague were shattered by stones hurled by yeshiva students.

<snip>

It is not complicated to understand why Arabs are attacked in Israel. The young man in a daze at Ichilov Medical Center belongs to a minority. Most of the public sees Arabs as second-class citizens, if as citizens at all, potential traitors who don’t rise for the singing of "Hatikva." (“Without loyalty there is no citizenship,” said Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman). They don’t serve in the army (“equal sharing of the burden,” as the slogan goes) and therefore a wide variety of employment opportunities are closed to them, as is the right to live among Jews who seek a better standard of living (“acceptance committees” in rural communities). Their representatives are traditionally banned from being part of the government coalition (“Jewish majority”) and recently also from a bloc in parliament (“the Zouabis,” in the words of Yesh Atid chairman MK Yair Lapid, with whom he would never team up.)

This perception of superiority, this shameless racism, is increasing among parts of the religious and ultra-Orthodox public, where it is additionally validated by rabbinical rulings. Over the years this outlook has received legal encouragement from the state in the form of lenient treatment of Jews who harm Arabs. A case in point: the indictment for mere incitement which was filed against some of the participants in the lynch mob last year in Zion Square in Jerusalem. And beneath it all bubbles a national blood feud and the Israel Defense Forces' melting pot, which trains Israelis to see Arabs through the sights of a gun, and which beyond the Green Line – Israel's pre-1967 borders – initiates daily damage to the rights and dignity of Palestinians.

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-silence-after-the-lynch-of-israel-s-arabs.premium-1.508939

[PDJane]

1. This is the inevitable result of a religious state.

[oberliner]

3. Israel is not a religious state

Not sure where you are getting your misinformation from.

[PDJane]

5. Sure it is.

And if you are treating the Arabs and non-religious as second class citizens, this is the inevitable result.

[oberliner]

7. No it's not

It is a secular country.

[PDJane]

18. The whole point of Israel was to be a Jewish country.

That means, by definition, a religious state. There are secular parts of Israel, but the whole point of Israel is to be a religious refuge.

[King_David]

27. Nope

An ethnically Jewish state with not one religious party in the new government coalition .

[Shaktimaan]

35. Incorrect.

The Jewish people wrt Zionism refers to the nation of Jewish people. It is a nationality, not a religion that forms the basis of Israel's ideological core. That's Zionism 101.

[PDJane]

42. And it's a lie that you choose to believe because it's helpful.

Jewishness is a religion. That's why the Palestinians and arabs and other ethnics are second rate; they can't intermarry with jews, they can't do so many things. It's a myth of zionism, one of many.

[Shaktimaan]

45. Also untrue.

Btw it's Judaism, not "Jewishness." And yes, Judaism is a religion, but the religion is not what defines who is Jewish and who us not. Nor does it define who is eligible for Israel's right of return, which asks the question, "who would be persecuted for being Jewish" and not "who is actually Jewish." A critical difference and one that disproves your theory.

Not to mention that your assertion follows no logical train of thought. Look at your statement: "Arabs and Palestinians are considered second rate because Judaism is a religion." That makes sense to you? It's not even an argument.

Palestinians, Arabs and other non-Jews are guaranteed equal rights under Israeli law. They are not second rate by any means. If they can't intermarry in Israel that is due to Israel's antiquated laws that do not have in-state secular marriages. Which doesn't discriminate against any one ethnicity. That said, all out of state marriages are recognized, so a Jew and an Arab could still get married.

I won't pretend that racism and discrimination don't occur. They do. Just like everywhere. But your initial statement labeling Israel a religious theocracy is simply untrue. Just as your belief that Israel was founded to provide a haven to practice Judaism unmolested is false. If you'd bother reading the original zionist's philosophy you would know this. For the most part Israel's founders were themselves secular Jews, and were not at all religious.

There are secular parts of Israel, but the whole point of Israel is to be a religious refuge.

The whole point of Israel was to have a refuge from anti-semitism. If you don't know this then you don't know the first thing about Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. Lebanon also has the same antiquated marriage laws.

I didn't know this until a few days ago, but interfaith marriages are not allowed in Lebanon, but are recognized if the marriage took place outside of Lebanon. They also, like Israel, do not have civil marriages.

[Shaktimaan]

49. Makes sense

For the most part these kinds of marriage laws are not there as a means of oppression so much as a manner of compromise within societies where many different cultures exist in a delicate balance. By tossing issues like marriage regulations back to each individual religion's leadership the state can avoid the sticky mess of imposing a single set of rules on a practice governed by a morass of conflicting, ritualized regulations that each group approaches differently yet feels very strongly about.

In Israel's case it merely deferred to the rules that were already in place from the Ottoman Empire.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. I wasn't aware of the Ottoman Empire's laws.

I just checked and it seems Jordan and Syria also have similar laws, but Syria may have civil marriages, the site was confusing, so I am not sure. I also didn't know all of those countries, except Israel, allow for polygamous marriages for men. I appreciate the additional info, but I still think they all need to join us in the 21st century in regards to marriage laws.

[shaayecanaan]

53. That is partially untrue

There is no legal provision banning interfaith marriage in either Israel or Lebanon. The matter is left up to religious authorities.

In Islam, a Muslim man is allowed to marry a Christian, but not the other way around. Much the same goes for the Catholic churches. Druze can only marry Druze.

The Protestant churches (there are not many of them) are more liberal. The Anglican church for example (there is only one in all of Lebanon) requires only that one party to the marriage be of any Christian faith. Consequently, quite a few people get married there.

Israel recognises Anglicanism but no other form of Protestantism, meaning that a Protestant not wishing to marry in the Anglican church would have to go elsewhere. The same goes for Bahais, etc, in Lebanon (and Israel I believe). They cannot get married.

Christianity does not generally allow divorce (in either Israel or Lebanon). This means that Christians will often have to convert to Islam in order to get a divorce from their spouses. This actually happens more often than you would expect.

There is very limited civil marriage in Israel, which is available only to the Russians who cannot qualify as Jews.

Interestingly, however, there is limited civil divorce in Israel. This is available to (Jewish) applicants who married Christians or Muslims, and wish to obtain a divorce. Owing to the customary Jewish distaste regarding intermarriage, they alone can apply to a civil court for their marriage to be dissolved.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. Seems the civil marriage in Lebanon just changed as of this year.

It doesn't seem, however, that laws regarding inheritance have changed in mixed marriages. Of course, same-sex marriages are not allowed in either country, though Israel does recognize them if preformed abroad.

ETA: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/reportsfeatures/lebanons_first_civil_marriage (very interesting story)

[shaayecanaan]

59. A very positive development

I was aware that Lebanese can now have their religious affiliation removed from their ID cards, I was not aware that civil marriage became available upon doing so.

This would also apply to the Bahais as well, or anyone else that was not affiliated with one of the 17 recognised sects.

Hopefully Israel can follow Lebanon's example with respect to this.

[Behind the Aegis]

61. It is a positive development.

Perhaps several nations with this type of marriage law will follow suit, including Jordan and Syria. Maybe they can all follow Israel's lead and allow gay unions as well.

[shaayecanaan]

62. Israel doesnt "allow gay unions"

it recognises de facto gay couples and also gay marriages officiated overseas. Neither gay marriages or gay civil unions can be officiated within Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

63. And Lebanon doesn't even recognize those, so maybe they will follow Israel's example.

[JoDog]

56. Many definitions

"Jewishness", as you put it, is many things. There is Judaism the religion. There is the Jewish culture. Also, there is a Jewish ethnicity, complete with unique genetic markers.

It is possible for a person to be all three. As a convert to the faith, I am the first and a bit of the second. I will never be the third.

The state of Israel is officially the second, a culturally Jewish country. A person need not be religiously or ethnically a Jew to be an Israeli citizen. Just ask all the messianic Christians who have moved there over the last couple of decades. Now, religious and ethnic Jews do get to go to the front of the line, so to speak, where immigration is concerned, because of the historical worldwide discrimination against them.

In Israel, the federal holidays coincide with the major Jewish holidays. Government offices and most stores are closed on the Jewish sabbath. To contrast that, consider that America, while not being a Christian religious nation, is culturally a Christian nation. Our federal holidays coincide with the major Christian holidays. Government offices and many stores are closed on the Christian sabbath. However, only the foolish would interpret this to mean that American is a Christian religious state.

In its early days, Israel made the mistake of not establishing civic marriage and handing control of marriage licensing to the rabbinate. Since this is ran by the orthodox, they will only let people they recognize as Jews marry in Israel. Which, BTW, does not include me. Activists are trying to change this as we speak.

[curlyred]

28. It is a zionist state

Which I think is different from Jewish.

[King_David]

31. How so?

What does a "Zionist State" mean?

A Zionist state is most definitely a Jewish State.

The Zionist entity is the Jewish State!

What do you think a Zionist state is?

[curlyred]

36. It is the difference between politics and religion n/t

[King_David]

37. The Jews are a People

An ethnic group and some are religious .

Some are atheist.

[cali]

2. actually, it's more the result of the occupation

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. It is not complicated to understand. It's called apartheid, Jim Crow and it's getting worse.

[King_David]

6. Apartheid Apartheid Apartheid

You keep saying it and sound as ridiculous as it always did.

Anyone keep saying such slurs has a delegitimization agenda.

A very lonely journey for you,thankfully .

But it's important for people to realize that since 1948 Jews are proud and strong and not the weaklings our grandparents were , thanks to Israel and the IDF .

[link:|

[oberliner]

9. Is that you?

I thought you were older.

[King_David]

10. Nah not me,

LOL

[oberliner]

14. Who is it?

Is it someone famous? Or just a random photo?

[cali]

11. wow. did you really just infer that Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust

were "weaklings"?

I find that offensive.

[King_David]

15. Not offensive at all,

It's all part of "never again" will we go meekly like lambs to the slaughter .

Warsaw getto uprising Heros led the way in showing Jews can fight back.

Israel proved we are strong.

Not offensive at all, once we were weak , now we are strong .

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. "Not offensive at all, once we were weak , now we are strong."

How nationalistic of you. So cute.

[King_David]

23. I'm a Jew/Zionist

So ?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. No, really, you should revel in your nationalism.

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

It's just that nationalism trends towards other isms: lots of marching, salutes, a targeted - perceived subgroup to blame for your internal/external troubles, lots of weapons, a desire for expansion and empire.

But really, there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm adding this for relevance.

Zionism by nature is nationalism. No?

I'm merely pointed out that with your strong/weak remark, that even Cali seemed taken by surprise with, and subsequent reply of
never again, uprising Heros, Jews can fight back, Israel proved we are strong and reiteration of once we were weak , now we are strong .

I also pointed out that nationalism can lead to other isms. Was I wrong?

On edit: I was going to add this, but it slipped my mind. Even Ynet seemed to ask the question once.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3972908,00.html

Perhaps you want to call Ynet and tell them they are wrong.

[King_David]

34. Your post is against DU IP rules..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134287

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. Which bullet point are you refering to, David?

Zionism by nature is nationalism. No?

I'm merely pointed out that with your strong/weak remark, that even Cali seemed taken by surprise with, and subsequent reply of
never again, uprising Heros, Jews can fight back, Israel proved we are strong and reiteration of once we were weak , now we are strong .

I also pointed out that nationalism can lead to other isms. Was I wrong?

On edit: I was going to add this, but it slipped my mind. Even Ynet seemed to ask the question once.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3972908,00.html

Perhaps you want to call Ynet and tell them they are wrong.

[King_David]

41. Nope. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

43. That was a pretty useless reply.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. Yours are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113435336#post6
• Do not embed graphics or photographs of any kind into your messages. Maps or statistical graphs are okay.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=35441
• Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli."


Goodnight.

[holdencaufield]

33. Coming from ...

... as most of us do ... from a country that often projects it's national will by force on other nations simply because we believe we have a better way -- calling out Zionist Jews for being "nationalistic" is hypocritical, isn't it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. "projects it's national will by force on other nations"

Do explain that a little more in detail as to the exact nature of that country that "projects it's national will by force on other nations".

If you are admitting that Israel "projects it's national will by force on other nations", and that there is nothing wrong with that, then that is at least a step in the right direction and tacit admission to their policies abroad.

As to nationalism there is no modern equivalent of parity between the US and Israel presently. There have been brief moments i.e. gulf war one - "Dessert Storm", and one would have to go back to WWI and WWII to find truer parity. Korea and Vietnam weren't popular for long. The US may have been victors in the former, but had been attacked. Even after winning in WWII the US certainly left a presence but had no intention of repopulating the lands of the defeated or subjugating its people.

One could make an argument that Israel shares similarities to other countries where nationalism has been worn like a badge of honor by the majority only to be used as a tool for persecution and fear in others.

Nationalism, when used as an excuse by the majority to subjugate a minority, is anathema to democratic principles, human rights and common sense. Anybody that defends the use of it with respect to the OPs article is the one or are the ones acting out of hypocrisy.

[holdencaufield]

40. You're joking -- right?

US Forces have been nearly constantly and forcibly "projecting it's will" on foreign nations since our inception

In the 19th Century - Since the American invasion of Tripoli and the Barbary Coast, Mexico, Cuba - in fact much of Latin America, Greece, Indonesia, Fiji, Samoa, China, the Ottoman Empire, Japan, Formosa, Hawaii, Egypt, Korea and the Philippines -- all saw US forces invading and forcibly imposing US will on them and their citizens.

In the 20th Century -- China, many of the Central and South American countries, Syria, Abyssinia, Tangiers and Korea, Mexico, Germany, Soviet Russia, Turkey, Croatia, Guiana, Iceland, Thailand, Laos, and others.

The US has, at one time or another, fully or partially occupied Mexico, Cuba, The Philippines, Japan, Germany, Austria, Korea, and South Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan remain occupied today while in Germany, Japan, Korea and many of the Gulf Arab States the US maintains a sizable military presence.

We are the KINGS of occupation -- while the Brits may have been better than us in the 19th Century, we certainly have bragging rights in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

44. I was writing a long reply, point for point, when it occured to me.

You are correct, provisionally.

American has done a lot of things it should be ashamed of, and when it does these it has to own up to them. We can't go back and change history. Some of the countries on your list that America occupied were actions of a nation in a defensive mode, others for less than savory reasons. We can't change history, but we can learn from it and admit our mistakes.

When we learn from our mistakes that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to injustice elsewhere just because our history will be called into question. You can call the US hypocritical when it engages in wars built on lies, or kills hundreds of thousands of civilians in doing so. Just because my country has done these things does not mean that I can't criticize it when it is wrong, or others that want to wave the flag while the US drops another Hellfire missile from a drone on a child.

This isn't about the US. This is about me speaking my mind freely when it comes to intolerance, blind patriotic showmanship, flag waving and chest thumping.

[holdencaufield]

52. Learning from our mistakes ...

... is something from which every country can benefit. But, we aren't talking about US mistakes in our History -- we're talking about US mistakes last week.

So, let's put this in perspective ... Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the continued economic blockade of Gaza is a bitch of a problem. I -- and I believe the vast majority of Jews and Israelis -- just want it to go away. It comes as close to being insoluble as any problem ever faced. Let's break it down, shall we?

1. Hamas and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Palestinian Authority, remain an intractable enemy to Israel. These aren't my words, these are their own word. And it's not occupation, this has been going on for decades, before '67, before '48. It's an issue that goes back over a century. Most Israelis believe, and for good reason, that if they packed up and left the West Bank tomorrow -- going back to whatever borders you name '47 partition, '48 post-Independence, '67 armistice, the "armed struggle" would continue.

2. This isn't due to any intractable nature of Arabs or Arab Palestinians. Joe Palestinian in the street doesn't want to be occupied but nor does he want to be at war -- a war that any practical Palestinian will inwardly admit isn't winnable. But, Joe Palestinian doesn't get a say in that. And it's not just the Hamas leadership or the PA Leadership that keeps this going. Iran, Syria and the groups that they sponsor owe their very existence to "the struggle". If, tomorrow, Ghandi took over Hamas and made nice with the PA, the factions inside and outside Hamas wouldn't allow the conflict to stop, there are just that there are lots and lots of political motivations to keep this going. Too much bad blood, too much history.

3. Israel has a problem, while there are factions that want all of the West Bank, they don't represent anything close to a majority. They don't hold political power and they aren't a roadblock to an eventual settlement. Joe Israeli's only motivation for continuing the occupation is to keep the West Bank from becoming Gaza Plus where rockets don't land on Ashdod and S'derot, but on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

4. But, Israel CAN'T annex the West Bank, anyone who accepts that the Jewish State needs to remain demographically Jewish knows this. It's not nationalism, or racial supremacism that dictates this, it's pragmatism. For better or worse -- mostly worse -- Israel is unique among countries. It doesn't just exist, it NEEDS to exist. For thousands of years, Jews have suffered at the hands of host nations (everyone has their own theory on why this is so, but let's just accept that it's so). The holocaust is just the most recent and egregious of this suffering. Jews aren't the only group who have suffered in History -- no one would ever claim that -- but, you have to admit, being a Jew for the past few thousand years has been a pretty tough row to hoe. Israel's "right to exist" has nothing to do with Torah, or being "chosen", the right to exist springs from the need to exist. It sucks that Israel needs to exist, but I don't think anyone can argue that the need doesn't exist. You can argue till the cows come home about where Israel needs to exist, but that need is real and for all practical purposes, where Israel is today is where it's going to stay.

5. If Israel can't annex the West Bank and the fear that leaving the West Bank will result in an escalated threat to Israel is a real fear -- what to do? Do you have an answer? Does anyone? Does an answer that is equitable to both Israelis and Palestinians really exist? I don't think it does. I would love to see a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but I honestly don't think it's going to happen in the near future. And it has nothing to do with Likud or any other Israeli Party -- right, centre, or left -- they've all come and gone and no one has come up with an answer. Arafat, come and gone, no answer. This is not about personalities, Jewish or Palestinian.

6. So there is this problem with no easy (or even difficult) answer. Palestinians aren't fully to blame, Israelis aren't fully to blame, Global Zionists can't be solely blamed and neither can radical Islamic organizations. Even if the much reviled settler's all packed up and left the West Bank tomorrow, the fighting wouldn't stop. So -- and here is my point -- You have an impossible problem that MOST people would like to see solved but just can't figure out an answer.

So -- and here is my much protracted point -- how do I, as a Jew, reconcile the fact that (in this allegedly progressive forum) Jewish Israelis (let's be real here, we're not talking about Methodist Israelis) are regularly called racist, land-stealing, war-mongers? Everything they do and say, down to the craziest of Israelis, is scrutinized with a proctoscope and given some evil motivation. How am I, as a Jew, supposed to respond when people regularly question the right of Israel to exist? How am I, a a Jew, supposed to account for the fact that with everything going on right now on this planet -- a bunch of it being perpetrated by my own country -- the traffic in this forum is so much higher than any other non-domestic issue and the rhetoric so much more divisive? How is it that there are so many posts on Israel -- and so few about Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan -- where the death tolls are so much higher?

Let's say for a moment, I (let's get hypothetical here) were ethnically Chinese, and there was a very loud chorus of my fellow Democrats saying that China has no right to exist because it occupies Tibet and that occupation continues because of the evil, land-stealing, intractable nature of the Chinese people -- would I be within my rights to call shenanigans on account of racism? I think I could and I don't think most people would blame me.

So, you tell me -- what's to be done?

[shira]

57. Good post. Let's see some answers to it! n/t

[pelsar]

68. nice try....but

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 06:13 AM - Edit history (4)

its not about what are possible solutions...its not about actual people and how they actually live, its not about their every day lives, dictatorships and democracies and its surly not about peace, security and the future.....those are all secondary, they come after the "holy of holies"

its about a vague culturally subjective term called "justice" that is what is paramount

The "religious tenet states" as far as i understand: If there is "justice" for the Palestinians (defined by a anonymous vague group of westerners that have the audacity to claim that they can define "justice" for everyone by attaching the word universal to it), then peace will inevitably follow, hence your questions and descriptions are irrelevant

...and if peace and security dont come after this "justice" is applied, the 2nd religious tenet states that it will...eventually, some time as its inevitable once this 'justice" is applied, (and if it doesn't come, it then means the "justice obviously wasn't applied properly)

just ask
____

[Scootaloo]

64. Yes, he did

Keep reading, you'll learn all sorts of stuff about how Zionists perceive Jews and Jewish history.

It's all very similar to how fundamentalist christians view it - and it's every bit as sympathetic to Jews, too.

[azurnoir]

65. well FWIW there's this which the comment could be taken as a reflection of

Moshe Sanbar, chairman of the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in Israel—an umbrella organization for 29 groups and 300,000 survivors—links the lack of interest to the survivors themselves.

"Israeli survivors did not want to have anything to do with these issues," he says. "They wanted to close the book on the Holocaust."

Sanbar traces this attitude to survivors' experiences just after their liberation from the death camps and arrival in the nascent Jewish state.

"They called us the sabonim," he says—using Hebrew slang for "cowards."

But it also sounds like the Hebrew word "sabon," or soap, which survivors perceived as a reference to the soap the Nazis made from Jewish corpses.

With some justice, survivors arriving in Israel felt stigmatized. Israelis were creating a "new Jew," symbolized by the sun-tanned kibbutznik working the fields or the fearless underground fighter.

They looked down on the passivity of European Jews, who they felt went like sheep to the slaughter.

Eager to fit into Israeli society, Sanbar says, many survivors tried to shake off their Holocaust experiences.

http://www.jweekly.com/includes/print/8957/article/israeli-public-seems-indifferent-to-swiss-restitution-settlement/

[cali]

66. I intend to keep reading. I always do. But I've been posting in this forum

for a decade and I've been reading on the subject for longer than that. It's not terribly well informed of you to imply that Zionists all have the same pov on everything. In fact, it's bullshit. YOU need to do a hell of a lot more reading. Yikes.

[Scootaloo]

67. You're sort of right

No, Zionists don't have the same point of view on everything. I have no damn idea what flavors of ice cream Zionists enjoy, no clue what economic principles they might hold, or what their opinion is on the current North Korea situation. But on things related to the ideology, there is a strong uniformity of beliefs - otherwise it's not an ideology, it's just a funny word

You just saw one of DU's most outspoken Zionists - and frankly he's one of the saner ones - argue that the Holocaust "culled the weak from the herd." This is the opinion of a "mainstream, progressive" Zionist, on what amounts to the biggest, clearest community of liberals and progressives on the internet. And you want to give me shit for pointing out that his mentality is not that uncommon, and is even a defining feature of the political ideology he cleaves to?

[pelsar]

69. you dont need to read more...

you need to leave your narrow view of ideologies, as per your own definition and be open minded (i.e. not the bigot as per the dictionary) and learn about the zionism in general, but thats a personal choice.

However, given american politics and its straight jacket of simplistic ideologies and those that buy into it (black and white version of political parties and their members, tainted ideas depending upon who said it), which apparently you buy into, I doubt you will.

[Jefferson23]

12. The actions by the Israeli government deligitimize the prospects for peace, endlessly.

Why anyone would consider the victims of the Holocaust weak is beyond me, you're way out of line.
Thankfully you do not represent the victims in any official capacity.

[King_David]

16. Really ? Think again..

Ask Pelsar for example.

Israel has made Jews proud and Strong and confidant that what happened before will never happen again.

If Israel was around then , the Holocaust would not have occurred .

Israel is the reason it will not occur again.

Who am I?

I am a member of the tribe , my brothers and sisters and parents and boyfriends and cousins and grandparents and sons and daughters are all involved and were involved.

We have horses in this race...

Who are you ?

[Jefferson23]

17. Who are you? Arrogant and way out of line..and you do not, thankfully, represent

the victims of the Holocaust.

Your thought process is disturbing, at best.

Who am I? One who knows the difference between a victim and a weakling.

[King_David]

19. Arrogant ? LOL

Seems to me you never did tell us what brings you so passionately to this "debate"..

I think we on this side of the "debate" are more open as to what brings us so passionately .

I don't presume to "speak" for my community but just so you know, I am very involved in mainstream Jewish organizations and have contributed to community orgs press statements and releases.....

... You ?

[Jefferson23]

21. Yes, arrogant, painfully so. This is evident in your question as to why I am

here. You do not speak for all Jews on who is weak and who is not. The majority
rule gives you strength? That is a mistake of your making.

Your passion is blaming victims and politicizing it for a land grab...shameful.

You can imagine why I'm here in any fashion you prefer.

[King_David]

25. Who said anything about "land"?

As for the rest of your rant,

Jews have never been a majority anywhere in the world .. Ever.

Except after 1948 in Israel .

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. "Jews have never been a majority anywhere in the world .. Ever. "

Not even in old testament times?

[Jefferson23]

58. I did, that is essentially what you're defending in this thread..the expanding of settlements

and the treatment of Israel's Arabs. You were offended by another poster's claim of apartheid and followed it up
with an horrific affront to the victims of the Holocaust. Repugnant how you politicize it for gain.

We are talking about the majority within Israel..what did you think I was referring to...the United States?
Share which groups and press releases you have contributed to, here and within Israel.

[King_David]

60. What rubbish nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. What a pronouncement of nationalist arrogance.

I am a member of the tribe , my brothers and sisters and parents and boyfriends and cousins and grandparents and sons and daughters are all involved and were involved.

I can just imagine the same taunts being thrown at Palestinians as they are run off their land, have their crops burnt down or ripped up, livestock killed or scattered: as Israel annexes what is left of their land.

[King_David]

26. I wasn't talking to a Palestinian

The message was not to a Palestinian .

That was the point.

The ISM and lots of white western middle class peeps such as Greta Berlin make the same mistake in their desire to lead the Palestinians.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. "The message was not to a Palestinian." But that's where you are wrong.

That kind of shit is thrown at them all the time through, words and actions by Israel and their illegals.

You just happen to embody and voice it here: the Israeli dark nationalistic streak.

Good for you.

[Shaktimaan]

50. Key word there being:

Imagine.

You have a belief in a specific narrative that contains some shards of truth, and lots of flotsam and filler born of propaganda, incomplete historical information, and no small amount of prejudicial thinking.

[azurnoir]

13. If your Grandparents had been so weak you would not be here today

it was their strength, suffering and perseverance that brought Israel into being

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. I'm not alone, David.

Close your eyes, cover your ears and deny the reality as long as you want.

But it's important for people to realize that since 1948 Jews are proud and strong and not the weaklings our grandparents were , thanks to Israel and the IDF .

Weaklings? What an insult to Judaism everywhere.

Strong? Sure, with US backing and $$.

Bright? Apparently not. That gift seemingly is lacking in Israel today. Possibly due to spending too much time at the gym?

[Shaktimaan]

47. So you believe

That Israel itself exists as an apartheid state?

[oberliner]

8. Do you find "Arab" to be an offensive term?

It is used repeatedly throughout this article.

[Wabbajack_]

55. Jeez, sounds like South Africa

under apartheid.